The Thirty-Nine Articles - A Faith For Today

[MUCH interesting stuff on this site! Looking through the back issues I found a series of articles on the 39 Articles of Religion, something that doesn't get discussed very often. For those interested, I've collected the links to those PDFs here, as well as links to the Articles themselves as they appear in the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. --sionnsar]

Way too low church for me, personally.

The idea that reserving the Sacrament is "not Christianity but superstition" or that Eucharistic Benediction is a "dreadful rite" is way off my comfort scale.

He does have a shot at "curious and carnal persons" under Article XVII . . . at least he's brave, although his commentary there shows him to be somewhat Calvinist.

The XXXIX have to be read in the context of the religious wars of the 16th century, as well as of the traditional hatred between England and Spain (and, to a lesser extent, between England and France.)

"The idea that reserving the Sacrament is "not Christianity but superstition" or that Eucharistic Benediction is a "dreadful rite" is way off my comfort scale."

Your interpretation of that Article is way off my comfort scale. For the benefit of those who may not have the Article in front of them, the parts of the Article in question read:

Article XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper
...
"Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture; overthroweth the nature of the Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions."
"The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped."

The plain meaning of all this is:
1. No where in Scripture will we find Jesus saying that whenever we take & eat or take & drink, the ACTUAL substance of the bread & wine is miraculously transformed into his flesh & blood - not then & not now. In fact, only in Luke's gospel do we find the phrase, "This, do in remembrance of me." Thus, it isn't even obvious from a plain reading of the gospels (other than Luke) that Jesus expected this ritual to be repeated or, for that matter, that only one of the apostles (or a valid successor of the apostles, i.e. a Bishop or Priest acting on behalf of the Bishop) can change the subtance of the bread & wine into Jesus actual flesh & blood.
2. And, no where in Scripture will we find any command (from Jesus or anyone else) that says any "blessed" bread or wine is to be reserved in a tabernacle or displayed in a monstrance to be carried aloft in religious processions or worshipped & reverenced (as in the Roman Catholic practice).
3. The doctrine of "transubstantiation" HAS given occasion to superstition...not the least of which is a false doctrine of believers, or the accusation by unbelievers, that Catholics practice actual, ritualistic cannibalism.

While Anglicans believe in the "real presence" of Christ in the sacraments of bread & wine, Anglicans DO NOT believe in "transubstantiation" wherein we are ACTUALLY eating flesh or drinking blood. The fact that we do reserve blessed sacraments for later use or practice great care & respect in the handling, partaking, or disposing of these sacraments, merely conveys our reverence for our Lord, who we believe is present & spiritually nourishes us through the consecrated bread & wine.

Relax. If you'll read again, I was referring to the commentary, not the XXXIX itself.

When I was Episcopalian, I was very "high". I did and do believe in Transubstantiation, and so did our rector.

But the XXXIX was part of the English turmoil of the 16th c. (which is why it was relegated back in the 70s to the status of "historical documents", at the same time the communion service was revised to track the Roman Rite more closely - input of the "high" wing)

Ahem...it was relegated back in the '70's to the status of "historical documents" by the same folks who gave us: female priests & bishops, a watered-down & unscriptural Book of Common Prayer, the practice of Mysticism (including, but not limited to: Druidry, walking the labyrinth, Taize music, Women's "Eucharists" & Buddhist prayer beads on which they've hung a cross & remarketed as "Episcopal" prayer beads). Shall I go on? Let see...abortion, co-habitation, out-of-wedlock pregnancy, unlimited divorce & remarriage, non-celibate homosexual clergy, and same-sex "marriages." All these things are A-OK in the "new & improved Episcopal Church" - thanks to these enlightened, progressive thinkers who decided 30 years ago that the 39 Articles of Religion should be relegated to the status of historical footnotes. Bah!

No, you actually had two different groups working on the "new" prayer book.

The loony left was doing its best to water down the scriptural basis for the prayerbook, remove all negative references to homosexuality from the Lectionary, etc. etc.

But meanwhile, the Anglo-Catholic wing was trying to (1) bring the Eucharist into prominence instead of Morning Prayer with communion every fourth Sunday and (2) bring the rite closer to the Roman Rite.

The mess that they got is what happens when you try to deal with the devil.

Which is one of the reasons why we are now Catholics, but that's another whole story . . .

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.